Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (16709)	11/19/2003 2:15:18 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793648

Let's think about this for a minute -- Hitchens postulates many of the protesters from last year's million-person protest were supporting terrorists?? Hitch should pause in his opportunistic ravings long enough to realize what it means if there are tens or hundreds of thousands who march in the streets of London in support of terrorists. Some of the consequences of such an outrageous concept means Hitchens is out of business: 1) The US is generating many times more terrorist sympathizers than ever existed before the "War on Terror". This alone is insane. If true, it's shows that Bush is following a completely bankrupt policy that is suicidal for America, when even our closest ally is producing more terrorist sympathizers than, say, the "Axis of Evil". That means Hitchens will no longer be invited to stay at palaces as the guest of the 101st Airborne, like he did in August. 2) Let's say Bush decides to continue the "War on Terror" hoping the number of terrorists and sympathizers doesn't increase. This means militarizing much of the industrialized world to get a large enough force to track down and imprison the numbers involved. The only way to deal with such large numbers is create a Gulag. Maybe that's what Ashcroft has been doing there, studying techniques for mass internment. 3) Or, these protesters just in extreme disagreement with the Bush policy, and actually mean what they say. That's a third alternative, as hard to accept as that is.